SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 21710

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, K. V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ
MUHAMMED SAJAD A K – Appellant
Versus
STATION HOUSE OFFICER PANDIKAD POLICE STATION – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 421 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.Vishnu Narayanan, Shri.Mansoors M.P., Smt.Thejalakshmi R.S., Smt.Aswathy Krishna M.P., Smt.Anusree K., Smt.Niya Vincent
For the Respondents: Sri.C.Dinesh, ADV

A writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued without evidence of illegal detention.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus for the release of the alleged detenu held by the 2nd respondent. The detenu confirms her wish to part ways with the petitioner, stating she is not under detention. The court finds no grounds for intervention under Article 226.

Table of Content
1. petitioner filed for a writ for the alleged illegal detention of a relationship partner. (Para 2)
2. detenu's expressed wish shows no illegal custody. (Para 4)
3. no case made for intervention as per article 226. (Para 5)

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ or other direction commanding the 1st respondent to take custody of and produce before this Hon'ble Court the detenue named Vishnupriya, aged 22 years from the illegal custody and detention of 2nd respondent.

2. According to the petitioner, he and the daughter of the 2nd respondent have been in a romantic relationship for the past two years. He contends that the daughter of the 2nd respondent, who is alleged to be the detenu, is being illegally detained by her father, the 2nd respondent. It is further stated that, though he attempted to contact the alleged detenu, he was forcibly prevented from entering the premises. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that this writ petition has been filed.

3. In terms of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner as well as the alleged detenu have appeared in person.

4. We have interacted with both the petitioner and the detenu. The detenu stated that, though they were in a relationship earlier, she has now taken a conscious decision that i t would be in the interest of both parties to part ways. She has categorically stated that she is not under any illegal detention and that she does not wish to continue the relationship with the petitioner.

5. In that view of the matter, and in the absence of any material to indicate illegal detention, we find that no case is made out for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .

This Writ Petition (Crl.) is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top